CCPR/C/113/D/2000/2010 the future transitional justice mechanisms. The author considers these trends to be very worrying for democracy and the principle of separation of powers. 5.10 The author further submits that in August 2011, the Unified Communist Party of Nepal-Maoist struck a four-point political agreement with the United Democratic Madhesi Front in return for the latter’s support for its prime ministerial candidate Baburam Bhattarai. Despite pledging, in its third point of the deal, to inter alia uphold fundamental rights, in its second point it states that “all the court cases against those involved in the Maoist insurgency, Madhes movement, Janjati movement, Tharuhat movement and Dalit and Pichadabarga movements will be dropped and they will be given general amnesty”. This agreement was endorsed by Mr. Bhattarai when he was appointed as Prime Minister and was also endorsed by the Attorney General appointed following the Prime Minister’s nomination. This tendency reveals a willingness to protect politically connected individuals from criminal liability. The results of these worrying decisions have been a de facto amnesty and impunity for the perpetrators of hundreds of crimes. 5.11 The author refers to the jurisprudence of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights where the Court has considered that the prohibition of the forced disappearance of persons and the related duty to investigate and punish those responsible has the nature of jus cogens. As such, the forced disappearance of persons cannot be considered a political crime or related to political crimes under any circumstance, to the effect of preventing the criminal prosecution of this type of crime or suppressing the effects of a conviction.19 5.12 The author concludes that the lateness of the transitional justice mechanism, the inadequacy of the current proceedings regarding Mr. Katwal’s disappearance and the arbitrariness of the latest decisions on criminal case withdrawals and review are signs of a lack of appropriate remedial procedures in Nepal. Committee’s decision on admissibility Consideration of admissibility 6.1 At its 106th session, on 10 October 2012, the Committee examined the admissibility of the communication. 6.2 The Committee ascertained, as required under article 5 (2 (a)) of the Optional Protocol, that the same matter was not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 6.3 With regard to such potential future transitional justice mechanisms as the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and the Enforced Disappearance Commission, the Committee recalled that it was not necessary to exhaust avenues before non-judicial bodies to fulfil the requirements of article 5 (2 (b)) of the Optional Protocol.20 With respect to the requirement of the exhaustion of domestic remedies, the Committee noted the author’s attempt to obtain a domestic remedy by submitting a writ of habeas corpus to the Supreme Court in 2005 and considered that the State party had provided no concrete information on the First Information Report allegedly lodged by it and thus had not demonstrated that a criminal investigation was being carried out, more than 11 years after Mr. Katwal’s arrest, and that it was effective in the light of the serious and grave nature of the violations alleged by the author.21 The Committee found that the delay in carrying out an effective investigation had 19 20 21 The author refers to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, in its judgement of 26 November 2008, Tiu Tojín v. Guatemala, para. 91. See communication No. 1761/2008, Giri v. Nepal, Views adopted on 24 March 2011, para. 6.3. Ibid., para. 6.3. 11